Conventions

Home

M J Bridge

♦

♠

♥

♣

Bidding

Hands

Theory

When is four of a minor not a slam-try?


I have emphasised throughout this work that a bid of four of an agreed minor more often than not sets the suit and suggests a slam investigation.  This method is not universal but it is not uncommon in expert circles, and it is both simple and effective.


However there will clearly be many occasions when you need to bid to four of the minor merely as a preference or as a competitive effort.  It should also be stated that in many sequences the traditional Acol meaning would have been that of a limit bid - either pass or raise to game.  This is a popular method in club play and can be effective, particularly at pairs scoring.


The following is based on my preference that in many cases the bid will be a slam-try, but you should feel free to follow an alternative approach if that is your partnership preference.


It is important that your partnership has a clear understanding as to when such a bid might carry this slam-try meaning.


Here are my suggestions:-


The bid of four of the agreed minor will be a slam-try if:-


an unlimited hand jumps to four of partner’s minor in the absence of competition;

it is a raise of partner’s opening 2♣ sequence from the three-level;

a transfer into a minor is raised to the four-level following a 1NT opening bid;

the partnership is already in a game-forcing situation.


The bid of four of the agreed minor is not a slam-try if:-


the player making the bid has already limited his hand (eg with a pass, a limit raise, or a bid in no trumps);

the bid was forced by partner in a non-game-forcing situation - (eg your original response was at the one-level, but partner forced to 3NT with a fourth suit bid);

the bid was a competitive effort over opposition interference;

the bid was a preemptive raise of partner’s suit in a competitive auction;

it is a natural second suit following a transfer response.


You may well prefer, or be used to, alternative agreements - just adjust and agree the interpretations accordingly.

Beginner and above

Partner set the suit then raised to the four-level.

Your hand is limited but his is not.

He has bypassed your favoured game contract of 3NT.

It must be a slam-try.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO

1NT

-

2♠

-

3♣

-

4♣






Partner did not have to bid at this point, and he has not tried for a game in no trumps.

It must be a slam-try.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO

2♣

-

2♦

-

3♣

-

4♣






You have gone in search of a no trump game, but partner is unable to oblige.

As his hand is already limited by his 3♣ response this bid is not invitational in any sense.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO

1♣

-

3♣

-

3♥

-

4♣






Although partner’s hand is limited by his initial response you have now created a game-forcing situation.

He could have signed off in 5♣.

This bid must show a maximum and a fit.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO

1♦

-

1NT

-

3♣

-

4♣






Partner has forced you to this bid.

Not a slam-try.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO

1♣

-

1♥

2♠

3♣

-

3♠

-

4♣




Partner’s original response was at the two-level, and you have now produced a high reverse.

This creates a game-forcing auction.

Partner’s choice of 4♣ rather than 5♣ must show at least a slam interest.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO

1♥

-

2♦

-

3♣

-

4♣

-





The 2♥ overcall is weak.

If you have any strong support bids such as 3♥ available then it would be logical to play this as invitational.

An alternative would be to see the bid as ‘strong over weak’, and therefore showing something of a slam interest.

You

LHO

Pard

RHO



1♣

2♥

4♣








Context  -  Acol bidding - the auction  continues - in the slam zone.


If your choice is to play this bid as a slam-try then the continuations are discussed further on the page


minorwood

This page last updated 6th Mar 2021